『Cardiac Output』のカバーアート

Cardiac Output

Cardiac Output

著者： Dr Mike Charlesworth
無料で聴く

Cardiac Output is a podcast on cardiothoracic anaesthesia and intensive care medicine.

Dr Mike Charlesworth and Dr Calum Downes bring you tacit knowledge from a national transplant and ECMO centre — the reasoning that never makes it into the textbook.

Copyright 2024 All rights reserved.
エピソード
  • Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps: Timing, Traces and Trials

    Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps: Timing, Traces and Trials
    2026/09/11
    Two in the morning, day one after a long CABG. The patient has a balloon pump in, the augmented pressure has dropped, and the urine output has fallen away over the last three hours. The easiest thing in the world at that hour is to re-zero the transducer, decide the trace looks a bit better, and go back to what you were doing. By the end of this episode you'll know exactly why that's the wrong answer. This is the intra-aortic balloon pump, top to bottom, pitched at Final FRCA and a bit past it — it has appeared in past papers three separate ways, as principles, as indications and contraindications, and as complications. But the version worth having is the one where you can look at a trace on the unit and know what's wrong with it. Please note: the weaning approach and anticoagulation discussed are Wythenshawe-specific local practice. Take the principles, and check your own guidelines. We start with helium, and the two reasons to give rather than one — it's low density, so it shuttles down a long narrow catheter fast enough to work inside a fraction of a cardiac cycle, and it's highly soluble in blood, so rupture is far more forgiving than air would be. Then counterpulsation, and the sentence the whole device hangs on: the balloon pump increases myocardial oxygen supply and reduces demand at the same time, which almost nothing else does. Give adrenaline to an ischaemic ventricle and coronary perfusion may improve, but rate, contractility and wall stress have all gone up, so you've bought a little flow at a large metabolic price. Diastolic augmentation raises coronary perfusion pressure, presystolic deflation drops aortic end-diastolic pressure and therefore afterload and wall stress — supply up, demand down. Then the trace, as a learnable set piece. The rule first: put the pump on 1:2, so every other beat is unassisted and you have a control sitting next to your test. Then three comparisons in order — augmented diastolic higher than unassisted systolic, assisted end-diastolic lower than unassisted end-diastolic, and assisted systolic lower than unassisted systolic. That last one catches people every time: a lower assisted systolic pressure is not the pump failing, it's direct evidence you have unloaded the ventricle. The four timing errors get sorted by harm rather than by name, which is the distinction that shows understanding rather than recall. Early inflation and late deflation both load the ventricle during ejection and are the dangerous pair — late deflation worst of all, because the ventricle is ejecting against an inflated balloon. Late inflation and early deflation merely waste benefit, although early deflation can drive retrograde coronary and carotid flow and cause angina. Then triggers, the asynchronous mode and why you'd ever want it, and why arrhythmia is the balloon pump's great enemy. Indications and contraindications follow, including the most satisfying piece of physiology in the episode: why a balloon pump helps in acute severe mitral regurgitation. The ventricle has two exits, and how much blood goes each way depends on the relative resistance of the two routes — so dropping aortic end-diastolic pressure makes the forward path easier, the regurgitant fraction falls, and forward output rises. You're not fixing the valve, you're changing the arithmetic while somebody organises theatre. And on the other side, why aortic regurgitation is an absolute hard stop: everything the balloon does in diastole raises aortic root pressure, so in an incompetent valve you are augmenting the leak straight back into a failing ventricle. Then placement and the landmarks that matter, what TOE adds, the daily chest film, complications split into insertion, use and removal, and back to the 2am patient — falling urine output means think down, a lost left radial pulse means think up, and helium or blood in the tubing means rupture and it comes out now. We finish on the trap. IABP-SHOCK II was negative, and Altshock-2 in 2025 was stopped for futility in heart failure–related shock. So why is there one running in bed four? The answer isn't to ignore the evidence — it's to notice what those trials actually studied, which was routine, unselected use in two specific shock populations. That is a different question from the patient who cannot come off bypass, the one with acute severe mitral regurgitation waiting for theatre, or the one who needs to survive four hours until the cath lab. Chapters (00:00) Cold open — the augmented pressure has dropped(01:00) Why this episode, and what level we're pitching at(01:40) What it actually is, and why helium — two reasons(02:45) Counterpulsation: supply up and demand down at once(03:45) Inflation, and why the left ventricle is perfused in diastole(04:15) Deflation, afterload and wall stress(05:15) The trace — and why you put it on 1:2(06:05) Reading a pair of beats(07:35) Lower is better: the comparison everyone misreads(08:05) The four timing errors,...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    28 分
  • Journal Club: Iron Before Cardiac Surgery (ITACS)

    Journal Club: Iron Before Cardiac Surgery (ITACS)
    2026/09/07
    Something different this episode. No 3am emergency — instead, a pre-assessment clinic on a Tuesday afternoon, a woman booked for an aortic valve replacement in six weeks, and a haemoglobin of 118. Do you give her intravenous iron? ITACS, published in The BMJ in August 2026, is the best answer we have ever had to that question. It is also a trial with a great deal to teach about how to read a paper properly — so this is a journal club, and we go through the methods slowly, because that is where the meaning lives. The question first. A third of patients coming for cardiac surgery are anaemic, twenty to fifty per cent are transfused, and both are powerfully associated with complications, longer stays and death — in a specialty that consumes around ten per cent of the entire NHS blood supply. Correcting the anaemia in clinic attacks both problems at once. But anaemia may be a marker as well as a mechanism: if patients do badly because of the kidney disease or inflammation that made them anaemic, then fixing the number fixes the screen and changes nothing about the patient. A strong prognostic marker is not automatically a treatment target — and that idea runs through the whole episode. Then the methods. Thirty-three hospitals across ten countries, 955 anaemic adults for elective cardiac surgery, a single 1,000 mg dose of intravenous iron or placebo one to twenty-six weeks beforehand — and, deliberately, no requirement to prove iron deficiency. We look at how you blind a brown drug (a black syringe and an opaque line), and at the detail that separates a good trial from a trial that merely says "double blind" in its abstract: they checked whether the masking had worked by asking patients to guess their allocation. The primary outcome is days alive and at home at 90 days — what it captures, and the two things it hides. And then the finding that isn't in the abstract at all: the primary outcome was originally days at home at thirty days, and was amended to ninety in December 2020. We give the defence and the concern, and then we look at what the original outcome showed. It was null. Had the investigators kept it, this would be a negative trial, and that belongs in any honest summary of the paper. The results deserve care. The iron worked biochemically — ferritin rose from around 110 to over 500 — but haemoglobin rose by under 4 g/L, and three quarters of treated patients were still anaemic on the day of surgery, which explains the size of everything that follows. The primary result is one day, with a confidence interval touching zero, in a trial powered for a day and a half. Transfusion is the solid finding: 68% down to 61%, about fifteen patients treated to prevent one transfusion, and roughly 44 units of blood saved per hundred patients. But length of stay was identical, complications were identical — so where did the extra day come from? The paper answers it, and the answer is a smaller claim than the headline sounds. The best thing in the trial isn't in the abstract either. Rather than only reporting the median, the investigators reported the treatment effect across the whole distribution — and it turns out that patients who recovered well gained a fraction of a day, while at the 25th centile the difference was 6.1 days. All the benefit sits with the patients who did badly. It is post hoc, it was requested at peer review, and one of its confidence intervals is enormous — but it is biologically coherent, and it may be the most important idea to come out of this trial. We also correct an argument we would have made before reading the full paper. The obvious criticism — that enrolling patients without proven iron deficiency dilutes the effect — was pre-specified, tested, and not supported. Calum then supplies the more sophisticated objection, which is that an interaction test in a trial this size cannot exclude a subgroup difference. Plus the safety signal that matters to us specifically: a sixteen-fold increase in hypophosphataemia. We finish with the four-point critique, the strengths the trial genuinely deserves, and what to do in clinic on Monday. Chapters (00:00) Cold open — a haemoglobin of 118 and six weeks to go(01:00) Why the question matters, and the ten per cent of the blood supply(02:10) Marker or mechanism? The idea that runs through everything(03:00) What we knew before ITACS(03:40) The methods: 33 hospitals, 955 patients, no iron deficiency required(04:40) How do you blind a brown drug — and how do you prove it worked?(05:40) Days alive and at home: what it captures and what it hides(07:10) The primary outcome was changed mid-trial(08:30) What the original outcome showed(09:20) Sample size, two interim analyses, and the 95.4% interval(10:30) Did the iron actually do anything? Under 4 g/L(11:40) The primary result — one day, and an interval touching zero(12:50) Transfusion: the solid finding(13:50) Same length of stay, same complications — so where did the day ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    20 分
  • Protamine: The Most Dangerous Drug We Give Every Day

    Protamine: The Most Dangerous Drug We Give Every Day
    2026/09/05
    You will have noticed that consultants tend to give the protamine themselves, and if you're an ST3 who hasn't done much cardiac, nobody asks you to do it. Most people assume that's habit. It isn't. This is the theatre half of the bleeding week — the drugs, the traps in the tests, and a salvage case at the far end of what's possible. Last episode was the unit. Please note: the doses and drug choices are Wythenshawe-specific local practice. Take the principles, and check your own guidelines. The scale first: cardiac surgery consumes around ten per cent of the entire NHS blood supply, and ninety per cent of those products go into ten per cent of patients. Which makes anticipating who that will be most of the job. Bypass is hostile to clotting in five ways at once — a large heparin dose, haemodilution, cooling, platelet activation and consumption, and contact with the circuit — so know the cases where you will predictably need products (deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, redos, long pump runs, transplants and VAD explants, endocarditis, and anyone arriving anticoagulated) and act on it while they're still on bypass. Order them, get them thawed, get them physically in the room. The worst position is realising you need four units of something that's still in a freezer twenty minutes away. Then the antifibrinolytics. Tranexamic acid at three to four grams is the modern default; aprotinin — Trasylol — was withdrawn in 2008, reintroduced in 2012 with very narrow licensing, and is now used off-license for high bleeding risk, with the honest admission that there is very little evidence directly comparing the two. And a trap the crib sheet asks about directly: aprotinin artificially prolongs the R time on your TEG, so the trace suggests a coagulopathy that isn't there and you can go chasing it with products the patient doesn't need. We do the acquired von Willebrand story properly, because it's lovely physiology: turbulent flow across a tight aortic valve shears platelets and cleaves the large von Willebrand multimers, so the valve lesion itself causes a bleeding disorder — and explains the patient who oozes at the end of an aortic valve replacement for no other obvious reason. DDAVP, twenty micrograms in a hundred millilitres, given slowly, because giving it fast to a marginal patient at the end of a case will drop their pressure. The centrepiece is protamine. What it actually does (electrostatic neutralisation, not a receptor effect), the three types of reaction, and why type three — profound pulmonary vasoconstriction, pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular failure — is the one that empties the ventricle and stops the heart. Then the technique that follows from the principle that when you decide to stop, no more protamine must reach the patient: not through a running flush with a column of drug behind it, but through the central line with the tap turned between patient and syringe. And the counterintuitive part — protamine in excess is itself an anticoagulant, so the generous dose given "to be sure" makes the patient oozier, not drier. Heparin rebound gets its own section, because it's the four-in-the-morning diagnosis that saves a patient a lot of unnecessary products: protein-bound and extravascular heparin redistributing into a circulation whose protamine has already been cleared. Unexplained oozing in a patient who left theatre dry needs a small further dose of protamine, not factors. We also cover heparin resistance as an antithrombin problem, and recombinant factor seven — including a real case where it arrived from another hospital by ambulance and stopped the bleeding immediately, with proper caveats about cost, availability, thrombosis and haematology authorisation. We finish at the salvage end: a patient with acute HIT and thrombotic complications who needs an emergency BiVAD, with no time for plasma exchange or immunoglobulin. Heparin is out, argatroban is a unit drug rather than a theatre one, and almost nobody is comfortable with bivalirudin. The answer starts with getting the right surgeon — because some will go onto cardiopulmonary bypass first, and a bypass circuit demands full anticoagulation. Instead: VA-ECMO first as a heparin-free run, then the BiVAD from there, decided at a full MDT that is honest about what this is. And for the patient with HIT who needs surgery but isn't an emergency, the first and best intervention is simply time. Chapters (00:00) Cold open — the most dangerous drug we give(00:50) The scale: ten per cent of the blood supply(01:40) Why bypass is hostile to clotting(02:30) Who predictably needs products — and acting while still on bypass(03:40) Tranexamic acid, and aprotinin(05:20) Aprotinin prolongs the R time — don't chase it(06:10) Acquired von Willebrand disorder in aortic stenosis(07:40) DDAVP, and why you give it slowly(08:50) Protamine — what it does and why it's dangerous(10:00) The three types of reaction(11:00) Giving it so ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    18 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません